Explain this logically christians....

[Kathryn]

When "that way" is pointlessly, violently killing three innocent people, you're damn right I wouldn't have done it that way.

God didn't kill three innocent people - a drunk driver did. But yes, he did allow it to happen. Like I've said before - everyone dies, in a wide variety of ways. But we've all got that date with death before us.

I have a smart dog. I mean, for a DOG, WhoDat's smart - but he's only a dog, and frankly can never fully grasp human reasoning.

A few weeks ago, I took his buddy Josie away. When I brought her back several days later, I can just hear their conversation:

WhoDat: "Wow, girl, you lookin' rough. What happened to you?"

Josie: "You know that place they take us where they drag us in by our slave collars and that stinky man with the long dry fingers comes in and puts sticks up our butts and then jabs us with sharp things while our owner HOLDS US DOWN?"

WhoDat: "Yeah, dat place sucks. Just about de time we start tinkin' our slave owners are cool, dey load us up and take us to dat hell hole. And sometimes dey even LEAVE us dere for a few days! And hey, I'm not sure...but I tink dat's where dey took Big Mama when she got dose lumps all over her, cuz dey smelled like dat place when dey come home crying. And as you know...Big Mama never came home again..."

Josie: "Yeah and I think I know what happened to her. But let me tell you what happened to ME. You're not going to believe it. You know how we've talked about starting a family? Well, that's out of the question. They took me in there, and just left me in a cell. Dogs all around me were crying and howling, so I knew it was bad. The next morning that girl who tries to act nice came in talking all sweet to me, but I wasn't falling for it. Sure enough, she caught me and slipped the noose over my neck and dragged me down the hall. Then Stinky Man came in and -yep, you guessed it - stabbed me with sharp things. Next thing I knew, I woke up in another prison cell and I was so sore. I had a big piece of bed stuff wrapped around me for some weird reason so of course I tore all that off. And you WON'T BELIEVE what I say!"

WhoDat: "What dat, what dat? What choo say you saw?"

Josie starts to cry. WhoDat nuzzles her ear and then starts sniffing down her body.

WhoDat: "Girl, what dey do to you? What's dis bad place on your belly?"

Josie: "I'm so ashamed - I'll never be the same again! I think...I think..."

WhoDat: "What! You don't mean..."

Josie: "Yes...I do. I think...I think they took my girl parts out!"

WhoDat (shocked): "I been hearin' about dis! Why dey do dat? Who dey tink dey are, cuttin and maimin you and takin your joy like dat? Why dey wanna do dat? Dey act all nice, like dey love us, and all de time dey wanna mess our lives up!"

Josie: "I don't know baby, but I know this, cuz I heard them say it..."

WhoDat: "What dey say?"

Josie: "They say you're next."


My point is this - Just as my dogs can never fully grasp how people who seem to love them can allow, and even condone and organize, what they think are bad things happening in their lives - we can never, from our human perspective, fully grasp the big picture of how God works through all the events in our lives.

We have a limited perspective.

 

[PolyHedral]

It might be more accurate to say that God failed to save the three innocent people. And I don't think anyone would have done it that way, which raises the question of why God did.

 

[Kathryn]

See my edited post above yours.

 

[PolyHedral]

That would be valid if God is in some way limited by outside circumstances, but he is generally considered to be the creator of the whole universe. It doesn't make sense for Him to work towards anything, as He should just be able to will the effects to happen.

To return to the dog example, if the dogs posited that humans are all-powerful, what happened to them similarly makes no sense. After all, there is a reason dogs are sterilized, i.e. that you don't want to take care of pups. If humans were all-powerful, they could simply force a miscarriage, or something similar, which requires no traumatizing or alteration of the dog.

 

[Kathryn]

My point is that their perspective is limited by their being a dog, and that the entity they are questioning has a different perspective.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

My point is that their perspective is limited by their being a dog, and that the entity they are questioning has a different perspective.

Absolutely...

It is clear God has never intervened in this way, and probably never will.
Equally clear is the fact that his understanding of how he should act, differs from that of the OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God didn't kill three innocent people - a drunk driver did. But yes, he did allow it to happen. Like I've said before - everyone dies, in a wide variety of ways. But we've all got that date with death before us.

Culpability of the drunk driver does not remove culpability from God.

If I hand someone a gun, ammunition and an address, knowing full well that this person will go to that house and kill the people inside, then I am entirely guilty of their murder... even though there was another person involved.

If God is the orchestrator of some divine plan, then this is analogous to his role in every evil act that has ever taken place.

I have a smart dog. I mean, for a DOG, WhoDat's smart - but he's only a dog, and frankly can never fully grasp human reasoning.

A few weeks ago, I took his buddy Josie away. When I brought her back several days later, I can just hear their conversation:

[snip]

My point is this - Just as my dogs can never fully grasp how people who seem to love them can allow, and even condone and organize, what they think are bad things happening in their lives - we can never, from our human perspective, fully grasp the big picture of how God works through all the events in our lives.

We have a limited perspective.

I know that people often bring up similar analogies to this to excuse God, but I don't think they work for one big reason: omnipotence.

You want your dogs specifically to be happy and you want to prevent animal suffering as much as you're able, right? I understand that this is what motivates you to take your dogs to the vet for checkups and to get them spayed/neutered.

... but what if you could keep close watch on your dogs to avoid unwanted pregnancies? What if you had some way to get all of the benefits of a vet visit but with none of the discomfort to your dog?

As limited human beings, this just doesn't work for us: nobody can watch their dog every minute of every day to make sure that a stray doesn't sneak into the yard and cause an unwanted litter of pups. Nobody has unlimited room and resources to make sure that any and all pups that do come along are all going to be properly cared for.

Nobody's yet figured out a way to do the things a vet does in a way that the pet won't find at least somewhat unpleasant. However, this doesn't meant that vets want animals to suffer... in fact, they do all they can to minimize discomfort to animals, but being finite human beings, they can't eliminate all discomfort completely.

The ultimate goal of spaying/neutering is to make sure that every dog has a proper, loving home, right? If it was in your power to get this benefit without removing the reproductive organs of your dog, wouldn't you do it?

IMO, the "short-term pain for long-term gain" argument against the problem of evil creates a dilemma:

- if the pain is an undesirable but unpreventable side effect, then God is not omnipotent.

- if the pain is preventable, then the fact it exists implies that it must be desired by God for its own sake, and therefore can't be justified by the accompanying benefit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point is that their perspective is limited by their being a dog, and that the entity they are questioning has a different perspective.

When looked at in isolation, this may work, but I think this argument fails when we try to actually integrate it into the theology that it's supposed to be a part of. For example, I don't think this argument works in the mainstream Christian context.

On the one hand, your argument suggests that human beings don't have the sense to tell right from wrong on a fundamental level: if it really is good in some way we don't understand for an innocent family to die violently, yet we react to this with revulsion at what seems to us (or to me at least) to be an absolutely abhorrent act, then our moral sense has completely failed.

On the other hand, Christian theology suggests that we do know right from wrong (and not only that, but that we know it "like God", according to Genesis), and that we are culpable in the final judgement for the wrong choices we have made throughout our lives.

Your story used an analogy where there was a difference in level of understanding. Well, for judgement to be just, the guilty's level of understanding must be taken into account. Do you punish your dogs for not wanting to go to the vet? Hopefully not - while you do what you need to do to get them there, you understand and accommodate the fact that their perspective works on a lower level of understanding of the situation than yours does.

So... can we really tell right from wrong?

- if so, then we are in a position to judge the actions of God, and can call them immoral.

- if not, then we are not culpable for our bad choices, and any judgement that tries to hold us responsible for them would be unjust. Any God that carries out such a judgement would be immoral.

The way I see it, it's bad news for God either way unless we throw out Christianity and any other religion that believes in a final judgement.

 

[openyourmind]

On onside people blame god for the pain and lose of others. On the other side people defend god and his love and blame other people. I wonder how many people have said enough. Are they any that just stopped pointing fingers and said it doesn't matter why? They see are person in need of love and support and just do anything they can to help see them through. A person that has lost those close to him doesn't need to be surrounded with arguement about religion. It isn't a time for anyone to push thier beliefs, that's just selfish. Even I am guilty of this, I looked at the topic and answered the question at hand and missed the deeper issue.
My answer to this question is simple. There is no logical answer not one that can be explained to another person that doesn't see things the way you do. Your friend has lost a great deal and I'm sorry for his lose. I hope that you take the time to see what he needs to help him get through it all. Sometimes it isn't religion that one needs, sometimes it's just a good friend to turn to, one that is truely listening to him and not fulfilling thier own selfish needs. So if this is person your close to and you are having trouble understanding why, just imagine what he may be going through. Logically I say my heart goes out to all that lost a loved one to violence. I hope that if this happen to my friend I can think of more than just me.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It might be more accurate to say that God failed to save the three innocent people. And I don't think anyone would have done it that way, which raises the question of why God did.

First of all, God is not responsible because the world lies in Satan's power.
-1st John 5v19; 2Cor 4v4; Rev 12vs9,12

Second, man, not God, but man has dominated man to his injury.
-Ecc 8v9

Third, we can all be at the wrong place, wrong time.
-Ecc 9v11; Luke 13vs4,5

 

[Commoner]

My point is that their perspective is limited by their being a dog, and that the entity they are questioning has a different perspective.

If you could explain to your dog what's going on, wouldn't you do it? Especially if you knew it was suffering and in pain and scared? Your analogy isn't valid because we cannot, not to such an extent at least, communicate with dogs, while god can supposedly communicate with humans.

I have to say, if you have the ability to communicate with your dogs and failed to explain what was going on, I would consider you cruel at best.

 

[Kathryn]

.

[QUOTEYour story used an analogy where there was a difference in level of understanding. Well, for judgement to be just, the guilty's level of understanding must be taken into account.][/QUOTE]

Right, so when my dog won't obey me and get in the car, whether we're going to the vet or not, I discipline him.

[QUOTEDo you punish your dogs for not wanting to go to the vet? ][/QUOTE]

No, but that doesn't mean I won't discipline him for not obeying me by trying to keep from getting in the car.

Hopefully not - while you do what you need to do to get them there, you understand and accommodate the fact that their perspective works on a lower level of understanding of the situation than yours does.

Right - so I don't punish him for being afraid, and I don't try to verbally explain to him why he's going to the vet, but he IS going to obey me by getting his *** in the car.

So... can we really tell right from wrong?

God doesn't tell us or give us the right to judge His actions and motives. He gives us the tools we need to discern right or wrong on a human level.

- if so, then we are in a position to judge the actions of God, and can call them immoral.

Errr, no. See above.

if not, then we are not culpable for our bad choices, and any judgement that tries to hold us responsible for them would be unjust. Any God that carries out such a judgement would be immoral.

God gives us the guidance and tools we need in order to live OUR lives, not to judge His omnipotent will.

 

[Kathryn]

.

If you could explain to your dog what's going on, wouldn't you do it? Especially if you knew it was suffering and in pain and scared? Your analogy isn't valid because we cannot, not to such an extent at least, communicate with dogs, while god can supposedly communicate with humans.

But God DOES give us wisdom and discernment and understanding - in His time and in His way, not in ours.

God isn't a vending machine that dispenses wisdom and gifts and whatever else we demand the minute we insert a petition and pull the lever.

I have to say, if you have the ability to communicate with your dogs and failed to explain what was going on, I would consider you cruel at best

God promises us that we will be able to understand all things eventually. Much of what occurs in our lives, He gives us the grace and understanding to grasp and incorporate into our lives within our lifetimes. The more we seek wisdom from Him, the more He gives us - when the time is right for His plan.

 

[Commoner]

But God DOES give us wisdom and discernment and understanding - in His time and in His way, not in ours.

Is that supposed to be some sort of justification? Cruel, cruel, cruel...

 

[Copernicus]

But God DOES give us wisdom and discernment and understanding - in His time and in His way, not in ours.

But Commoner's point was that God COULD give us wisdom and discernment and understanding in a way that would work for all of us, not just a few. Instead, God always behaves in a way that leaves his existence questionable, and there appears to be no reasonable explanation for why such a being would behave in that way. If God did not exist, then people would have to invent exactly the kinds of rationalizations that you provide.

God isn't a vending machine that dispenses wisdom and gifts and whatever else we demand the minute we insert a petition and pull the lever.

You act as if an inexhaustible being would become exhausted by having to deal with a few billion human beings. That is not what one would expect from a being of infinite power, knowledge, patience, and mercy.

God promises us that we will be able to understand all things eventually. Much of what occurs in our lives, He gives us the grace and understanding to grasp and incorporate into our lives within our lifetimes. The more we seek wisdom from Him, the more He gives us - when the time is right for His plan.

Except that he doesn't really promise that to anyone except believers. Perhaps that is because believers are special, or perhaps it is because believers have talked themselves into an untenable belief. God gives us nothing that we would not get if he did not exist at all. And that is not to say that we get no benefits from religious belief, only that we must pay a heavy price in mental energy to come up with excuses to justify belief in the existence of a god of infinite knowledge, power, and mercy in this particular reality that we find ourselves in.

 

[Kathryn]

If you don't believe in God, then who are you mad at? Honestly, I don't get it.

I do believe in God, and I have had heartbreak in my life. My faith is intact. Why does that bother you so much?

 

[Copernicus]

If you don't believe in God, then who are you mad at? Honestly, I don't get it.

I'm not really mad at anyone here, but, to the extent that there is any anger, it is between people who believe and do not believe in gods, because religious belief also brings political baggage with it. The argument here is over whether a merciful God who could end suffering, but permits it anyway, makes sense.

I do believe in God, and I have had heartbreak in my life. My faith is intact. Why does that bother you so much?

This debate is not an attack on your faith, although it may sound that way to you. It is an attack on your defense of it in a discussion forum devoted to general religious debates.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you don't believe in God, then who are you mad at? Honestly, I don't get it.

You can appreciate the consequences of accepting a belief without actually accepting it.

Also, for the most part, I'm not getting mad at God. There are two main things that bother me in these sorts of discussions:

- As they say, "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I am genuinely worried that if millions (billions?) of people convince themselves that horrible things are actually good, they will lose their motivation to correct these horrible things and the world will be a worse place because of it.

- IMO, quite a bit of the time, people use God as the personification of their inner beliefs and desires (I mean, when's the last time you've met someone whose God disagreed with him on any issue?). I'm often inclined to interpret something like "this person's suffering is part of God's plan" as "I think it's a good thing that this person suffered". I don't think it's unreasonable to react angrily to someone expressing that sort of sentiment, especially if the suffering person in question is one of your loved ones.

 

[openyourmind]

I love watching the faithful try to explain the actions of god with lies of men! Just can't do it can you?

 

[PolyHedral]

- As they say, "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I am genuinely worried that if millions (billions?) of people convince themselves that horrible things are actually good, they will lose their motivation to correct these horrible things and the world will be a worse place because of it.

Also worrying is the fact that b/millions of people can convince themselves of things that are obviously not true. A huge amount of the suffering in the world has no human cause, so I have absolutely no idea how people can seriously argue it does.